What do you think?
Rate this book
Greek Political Theory Plato and His Predecessors
Much has been written about the interpretation of Plato in the last thirty years. Once interpreted as a revolutionary of the left, and a prophet of Socialism, he has lately been interpreted as a revolutionary of the Right and a forerunner of Fascism. In this book Plato appears as himself ? a revolutionary indeed, and even an authoritarian, but a revolutionary of the pure idea of the Good, and an authoritarian of the pure reason, unattached either to the Right or the Left.
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
480 pages, Paperback
First published September 12, 1918
7 people are currently reading
108 people want to read
About the author
Ernest Barker
115 books10 followersSir Ernest Barker FBA (1874 - 1960) was an English political scientist who served as Principal of King's College London from 1920 to 1927.
Barker was educated at Manchester Grammar School and Balliol College, Oxford. He was a don at Oxford and spent a brief time at the London School of Economics. He was Principal of King's College London from 1920 to 1927, and subsequently became Professor of Political Science in the University of Cambridge in 1928, being the first holder of the chair endowed by the Rockefeller Foundation. In June 1936 he was elected to serve on the Liberal Party Council. He was knighted in 1944. He was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1958. There is a memorial stone to him in St Botolph's Church, Cambridge.
Barker was educated at Manchester Grammar School and Balliol College, Oxford. He was a don at Oxford and spent a brief time at the London School of Economics. He was Principal of King's College London from 1920 to 1927, and subsequently became Professor of Political Science in the University of Cambridge in 1928, being the first holder of the chair endowed by the Rockefeller Foundation. In June 1936 he was elected to serve on the Liberal Party Council. He was knighted in 1944. He was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1958. There is a memorial stone to him in St Botolph's Church, Cambridge.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 21, 2023
The strength of this book lies in the abundance of erudite background information about what ancient Greece was like, the conditions in which Plato wrote, Greek culture and education during Plato's day, influence of the sophists, Pythagoreans, etc. on Plato's thought. In this respect, it is the best general introduction to Plato I've read in a book of this size. Friedlander and Grote have much more to say on this score, but they wrote, literally, volumes on Plato. The book was written over a hundred years ago and Barker's general, erudite knowledge of Ancient Greek and Latin and classical texts in general dwarfs most modern scholars of Plato.
This background information is rather important and sadly neglected by most modern scholars, considering the dialogues were written over two thousand years ago, in a very different language, and in a very different world from our modern one.
The weakness of the book lies its rather shallow, not to say fanciful and at times absurd, interpretation of the dialogues themselves. There is almost a complete lack of textual analysis, although Barker does demonstrate that he knows the texts and ancient Greek quite well, e.g. the final note comparing Aristotle's Politics with Plato's Laws.
Barker's "interpretation" of the dialogues (Republic, Statesman, and Laws) is often a sort of free, imaginative interpretation that strays far from the text. It's really often more of an apology of Plato than interpretation, which is rather interesting in itself, but not much help, at times simply detrimentally, to understanding the actual dialogues. This said, the "interpretations" do offer a decent general overview of the dialogues, although he sometimes has little or nothing to say about important passage, e.g. the divided line analogy in the Republic and Plato's theory of ideas in general and critique of materialism in book ten of the Laws.
One big take away I got from the book is that I think Barker is closer to the mark when he argues that Plato is more of a mystic than a rationalist in contradistinction to Friedlander and the vast majority of modern scholars. More accurately, I think the distinction between rationalism and mysticism is simply foreign to Plato's thought, probably ancient philosophy in general. Plato seems very much aware of the limitations of both views as seen in the Theaetetus and Sophist on the one hand and Euthyphro and Ion on the other. This seems to me an important point of which many modern Plato scholars are hardly, or at least not sufficiently, aware, which leads to some miss readings of important passages.
This background information is rather important and sadly neglected by most modern scholars, considering the dialogues were written over two thousand years ago, in a very different language, and in a very different world from our modern one.
The weakness of the book lies its rather shallow, not to say fanciful and at times absurd, interpretation of the dialogues themselves. There is almost a complete lack of textual analysis, although Barker does demonstrate that he knows the texts and ancient Greek quite well, e.g. the final note comparing Aristotle's Politics with Plato's Laws.
Barker's "interpretation" of the dialogues (Republic, Statesman, and Laws) is often a sort of free, imaginative interpretation that strays far from the text. It's really often more of an apology of Plato than interpretation, which is rather interesting in itself, but not much help, at times simply detrimentally, to understanding the actual dialogues. This said, the "interpretations" do offer a decent general overview of the dialogues, although he sometimes has little or nothing to say about important passage, e.g. the divided line analogy in the Republic and Plato's theory of ideas in general and critique of materialism in book ten of the Laws.
One big take away I got from the book is that I think Barker is closer to the mark when he argues that Plato is more of a mystic than a rationalist in contradistinction to Friedlander and the vast majority of modern scholars. More accurately, I think the distinction between rationalism and mysticism is simply foreign to Plato's thought, probably ancient philosophy in general. Plato seems very much aware of the limitations of both views as seen in the Theaetetus and Sophist on the one hand and Euthyphro and Ion on the other. This seems to me an important point of which many modern Plato scholars are hardly, or at least not sufficiently, aware, which leads to some miss readings of important passages.
Displaying 1 of 1 review